Scrupulous Journalism in "Good Night and Goodluck"

Edward R. Murro, in "Good Night and Good Luck" treats his audience with respect and expectation of competent understanding of what he reports. He uses eloquent, sophisticated language combined with carefully aggregated information and makes a strong case and argument with patient and polite presentation. His very actions to report the story directly oppose the poorly based accusations of Senator Mccarthy, hence giving them more power against Mccarthy. He does not back down in fear when he bears the conviction of the truth and he welcomes opposition. He presents the facts in a manner that his audience can take and make a judgement for themselves. By these standards Murro preserves the two main foci of Journalism: The pursuit of truth and the loyalty to the citizen.

Provided below are two videos to compare the actual broadcast with the film portrayal.

Reporter's Favorites: Alex Beam

My uncle put me in touch with Alex Beam, a columnist for the Boston Globe. He spoke to me for a few minutes about journalism movies and offered his favorite film. He called me back and said "Sorry I'm calling you on the weekend. I hope Im not interrupting. Are you on a sail boat?" Laughingly I responded by saying "Oh, no, I'm just in my room. Thank you for calling me back!" When I asked him the question he first mentioned an interesting film called "Zodiac", but didn't offer it as his favorite necessarily. When I asked him again he responded by saying essentially "I heard your question on my answering machine and wish I had a more creative answer, but I'd have to say 'All the Presidents Men' would be it." He went on to explain his choice by saying "Most of what I know about it [watergate] I know from the movie...First of all, there is a lot of stuff you could say about the movie. Robert Redford is clean cut. Dustin Hoffman is scruffy. You have the Yale educated Woodward and not much information about where Bernstein was educated. Woodward is a very patrician character..." And he contrasts this image with the image of Bernstein in the receptionists office. He goes on to say "[As a viewer one] Feasts on a lot of those details [especially] the portrayal of deep throat which is fictional by nature. Now we know it's Mark Felt, [but at the time] they (Bernstein and Woodward) were not candid about how they got in touch with him. They gave the world this image of meeting him in a garage."

So, a sort of typical answer to the question of favorite journalism film, but in my opinion elegantly explained by Alex Beam.

For some of his columns check out this website. (Image is sourced from this site as well)

Reporter's Favorites

I interviewed two journalists from the Keene Sentinel. Here were their responses:

The first liked All the President's Men because it was an "awesome story, well-made movie, had great actors, and was close to the book." She also liked State of Play because of "all the twists and turns, Russel Crow's desire for the truth."

The second also liked All the President's Men because it was "inspirational and a realistic portrayal of how journalism works." He also liked Absense of Malice because it was a "good lesson of what not to do in journalism."

Reporter's Favorite's - Dave Rattigan

I was able to get in touch with Dave Rattigan - comedian extraordinaire, as well as an award-winning journalist whose work appears in major newspapers, websites and magazines. I asked him what his favorites films about journalism we're, and why.

He told me: "I've never seen All the President's Men from start to finish, So I'll go with the classic comedy The Front Page, which has been remade several times including into His Girl Friday (switching genders for the lead) and Switching Channels (switching the newspaper into a TV newsroom)."

It would be interesting to check out Switching Channels, having never seen it, but having seen His Girl Friday.

He went on to elaborate: "Of that group, I've seen all but Switching Channels, and liked the Jack Lemmon-Water Mathau version of The Front Page the most, probably because of the pairing of the actors. Although the Rosalind Russell-Carey Grant pairing was also excellent, featuring that fast-talking/overlapping dialogue style that really worked well. In all three versions, in a funny way, it depicted the detachment of the reporters from their subject matter -- and made it all about the story, story, story."

That seems to be a running theme throughout this course. Story, story, story. From Carey Grant, to Kirk Douglas, to Faye Dunaway, to Robert DeNiro, it seemed like all the different journalists, for their own different reasons, had completely detached from their subject matter, and only cared about selling papers or geting their scoop.

Good Night and Good Luck

The film is well shot and has good actors, but to me will always have a Clooney shadow looming over it. Not that Clooney’s direction is bad necessarily, it just feels like Clooney trying to impress to me. Dave Strathairn’s performance as Murrow was certainly the highlight of the film for me. His deadpan, stony-faced delivery of his speeches gives them a dignified confidence. He relies simply on his words and his message, rather than emotion language to make his case. This is one of the few examples we’ve seen where a broadcast reporter or journalist actually stood up for what was right, and true. Woodward and Bernstein were the only other good examples, and all happen to be real life stories. These people give me hope that journalistic integrity cans till exist in small pockets within this country, even in the face of seemingly insurmountable efforts.

This is one of Murrow’s best speeches, and is reminiscent of a lot of the issues touched upon in Network

"Reporter's Favorites"

As soon as I posted my last entry, I got an email back from Wendy Murray who teaches Feature Writing at Gordon and was a journalist for Christianity Today among other magazines. Here are her top favorites! Two of which we've watched!

Capote- portrays what it takes to write a thorough, complicated, journalistic, tragic piece. It also demonstrates the toll writing can take on a journalist.

The stoning of Soroya M.- powerful because it recognizes the importance of journalists being 'on the ground' (not reporting by reading other reporters reports). This story would never have been told if French-Iranian journalist Feidoune Sahebjam hadnt risked his own neck to tell a compelling and otherwise unknown story. His work has elevated the international profile of abuse of women in extreme islamic countries.

The paper- always remembered this movie because when the reporting had gone unverified, contradicted even when the presses were running, the editor literally 'stopped the presses' to re-run the corrected story. He was willing to take the financial hit to do the right thing journalistically.

Great choices i think!

"Reporter's Favorites"

After calling my local newspapers The Hartford Courant and The New Haven Register with no response. I called The Gloucester Times, The Boston Globe, Hamilton-Wenham Chronicle, also with no response! I finally got a call back from Dan Mac Alpine at the Ipswich Chronicle. He didn't have much time to talk, but did give me a list of his top three movies. Without hesitation he said that All the Presidents Men was by far his favorite. He also mentioned Blood Diamond with Leonardo Dicaprio- he said the reporter who broke the story was amazing! I never heard of this movie, but it looks good; might be a good addition for next year. Finally, he mentioned Network being his third choice, although he preferred print journalism movies.

"Reporter's Favorites" Interviews

The first person i was able to get in touch with was Sandra Trapani, who is the editor of the Salem News. Her favorite journalism movie was "All the Presidents Men." She says that when pursuing a story she feels much like Woodward and Bernstein did. As you discover more details of the story, your picture of what happens becomes more and more thorough. She said, "The more you uncover pieces of the puzzle, and usually that brings more questions and uncertainty and responsibility to tell the story right." She says that this is especially pertinent in today's world, as writers on the internet tend to write first and ask questions later.

The second person i interviewed was Robin Ellington, who is a freelance writer at the eagle tribune. Her favorite journalism movie was "Absence of Malice." This was a film released in 1981 staring Paul Newman and Sally Field. This film is about a newspaper pinning a murder on Paul Newman's character on some shady sources. Robbin said that this film shocked her because of the way the story was twisted by journalists. Journalists exploited the "grey area" of the story, and portrayed it in what ever way sold papers. Robin mentioned her favorite quote from the movie, "Everything they said was accurate, but none of it was true.” The paper winds up destroying a man's life, with extrapolation and incorrect interpretation. Robin said this was a great example of what not to do in journalism.

Good Night & Good Luck

This wasn't the worst movie we watched, but it wasn't the best. I think this movie had amazing potential: great actors, great writing, great cinematography.. but the ending was quite disappointing and really lacked climax. On the positive side, Edward Murrow's speeches blew me away!!! They just made me want to write well! (Uncle Zinzer would be proud right, Jo?) I'm still so glad to have seen this movie, the cinematography was so amazing. I noticed that there was probably a TV in just about every shot, how appropriate...

still waiting to hear from a reporter! hopefully I can get that up by tomorrow!

Good Night, and Good Luck...Staying Awake

Though this was the most painfully boring movie we have watched in this class, I was still able to glean a couple things from it. First, I adored the cinematography, especially Clooney's choice to set it in black and white. Basically, he wanted to use the real footage of McCarthy, and in order to do that, had to set the entire film in black and white to match the footage. I think it worked out, considering the darkness and sobriety of the film. I also liked the use of slow, dramatic zoom-ins and zoom-outs. The whole film had a steady pace that matched the boring-ness of the film, so at least it was cohesive. The other thing I was able to appreciate was the overall message about freedom of speech and the citizens' duty to use it. This is a great example of how the media plays the role of the watchdog and keeps those in power accountable. I loved Murrow's final monologue, as I think it sums up not only the motif of the film, but of journalism as a whole.

No Presidesnts, but Kane

I'm glad I've seen at least one of the top favorites!

Mr. Will Broaddus from the Salem News picks Between the Lines for his number one journalism movie. "Based on the now-defunct Real Paper, which was to Boston what the Village Voice was to New York during days when underground/countercultural news was a force to be reckoned with. It's simply a great movie, but also resonates today because it is about a paper that is struggling financially, a problem that confronts the field generally today."

Citizen Kane as number two. "When Orson Welles/Hearst writes that declaration of principles, and publishes it for his readers to see, so they can hold him to them--that's what journalism is all about."

Salvador was Broaddus' third favorite. "This man, a journalist played by James Woods, is divorced, broke, and desperate, but gives him a story to pursue, and he's all over it, with a vengenace."

Top 3

After contacting Salem News, Gloucester Times, Boston Globe, NY Times, and the Standard Times, the latter finally came through.

Andy Pomolonis of the Standard Times based out of Newbedford, MA loved All the President's Men, naturally. He claimed it was the movie that "kicked off the whole rush to be a journalist." Pomolonis said knowingly that "everybody wanted to be the next Woodward and Bernstein."

His second favorite was a 1931 film directed by Lewis Milestone simply because of it is a "classic."

His third favorite was Absence of Malice, an 80's film starring Paul Newman and Sally Field.

All the President's Men clearly stands out above the others that Pomolonis remembers.

Capote & State of Play

In Cold Blood was an intriguing film, but I found Capote much interesting! Philip Seymour Hoffman was amazing- and after watching the Truman Capote interview in class, I can see that he truly embodied his character. I was interested to know what he did to prepare for his role.

This was my second viewing of State of Play and I must say that I enjoyed it much more the second time around. I could more fully appreciate Cal's work to search for truth, I've always loved Russell Crow anyway... and Rachel McAdams so this movie was a win/win for me.

Walking the Dangerous Line of Journalistic Novels

I was very intrigued by the efforts Capote made to redefine not only journalism, but writing in general. He fused journalistic truth with the structure of a novel. With a novel, to write an adequate story the author must know his characters on an almost deeply personal level to make them convincing. For Capote this is an aspect he focused on deeply, spending an enormous amount of time with the Clutter family murders, just to figure out what makes them tick. He had to get inside their heads, which is what novelists do with their characters, and journalists stray away from. Each part he was fusing was held down by the other. Capote couldn't finish the book until the actual journalistic event he was writing about came to a conclusive end. He was writing journalism, but because he was formatting it as a novel he had to wait on the events to transpire so he could adequately fit the narrative together fluidly. He broke his novel into several parts as he wrote to account for this. It's something that is more widely done today, but for Capote it was truly ground breaking mainly because he was writing as it was occurring, not just reporting the facts, but doing something even more difficult and challenging and that was stylizing the facts together to create a cohesive story as he gained more information and didn't even have the complete picture yet. Capote sums this up beautifully by saying "This book was an important event for me. While writing it, I realized I just might have found a solution to what had always been my greatest creative quandary. I wanted to produce a journalistic novel, something on a large scale that would have the credibility of fact, the immediacy of film, the depth and freedom of prose, and the precision of poetry.”

Also, here is an interview with Capote on his views on capital punishment:

In Cold Blood/Capote

In Cold Blood was an interesting movie in that it was actually based on a piece of journalism rather than just a movie with journalism as the plot. That just shows how much film and journalism really are connected. I was amazed by the cinematography and impressed with the films ability to get me so involved; I literally got tense during the suspenseful moments and felt nervous and scared as Dick and Perry were executed.

Capote was interesting in that it showed Truman Capote’s process or writing a non-fiction book, which took years, relentless research, and essentially getting into the minds of the criminals. The relationship between Capote and Perry was a complex one. It was hard to watch Capote become attached to Perry and feel guilty for exploiting him, but continue writing the book anyway. In the scene where Capote is reading an excerpt from his book, I was surprised that it was so interesting and eloquently written. Sometimes, I get this idea about journalism that it’s only facts and boring details, but Capote shows that it takes a great deal of creativity to turn journalism into art. He saw potential in that story to be more than just a series of articles, and he persisted until he found a deeper story—enough to be an entire book.

Philip Seymour Hoffman

Once again I can't say enough about the acting in this film. While the direction and design are brilliant. Simple and elegant framing, extreme long shots of the landscape in turn become a character itself. BUT. Philip Seymour Hoffman took a leap. Small choices. Eye movements, hand gestures, lip quivers, voice annunciation. He embodied not just a character but the film itself.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000450/

Capote's "In Cold Blood"

The film Capote tells the true story of how Truman Capote's book "In Cold Blood" was researched and written. In 1967, the book was adapted into a film which was known for being unnervingly accurate in its depiction. The book describes the killing of the Clutter family in Holcomb Kansas, which took place 1959. Richard "Dick" Hickock and Perry Smith were responsible for the murders, and were arrested six weeks after the crime took place. Just after the murders occurred, Truman Capote read an account of what happened in a newspaper in New York. It was there that he decided that this would be the subject of his next book. Little did he know, that the book he was planning on writing would invent a genre of writing and solidify his place in history. Truman and his close friend Nelle Harper Lee rushed down to Kansas shortly after Truman had read the story. Over the next six years Truman would come to know most everyone in Holcomb, and when Dick and Perry were brought in, he got to know them very well too.

Perry believed that Capote had become his friend. They would swap life stories and found that they both had miserable childhoods. With an acquired sense of comfortability, Perry relinquished most every detail of his life and the events that took place in 1959 to Capote. Capote considered Perry to be a "goldmine", and when Dick and Perry's execution date drew near, Capote got them a lawyer who filed an appeal on their behalf. Capote "couldn't bear the thought of losing them too soon." At this point whether or not Capote actually considers Perry a friend is unknown, but as his execution date approached it was apparent that he did.

Capote was a writer, not a journalist. And as such he did not technically have a "code of ethics" to adhere to. The only morals that guided his decisions were his own. Those who employed him were in favor him him getting the story, and i would argue, would be in favor of him using any means necessary to obtain it. Towards the beginning of his investigation into the Clutter murders, Capote only involved himself to the extent necessary to gain the information he needed. As his investigation proceeded his level of involvement increased as information was harder to obtain. This continued until he, himself became part of the story. He was shaping the outcome by organizing lawyers to appeal on Dick and Perry's behalf. From a writing or journalistic perspective, Capote involved himself in the Clutter case to an unhealthy and unethical level. To the extent that there were serious emotional repercussions for Capote after the hanging of the two men.

Capote was played by Philip Seymour Hoffman, who won best actor for the role. Just after accepting the award Hoffman was involved in a press conference, during which he was asked about Capote.

Capote's In Cold Blood

It was nice to be able to watch In Cold Blood followed by Capote. It gave really clear context for Capote that would have been lost to me otherwise. As a film, In Cold Blood definitely dragged in parts, and had some cheesy music cues. The cringe-worthy ‘gee whiz’ family scenes were the most egregious, but the film also had some very good, tragic scenes as well as some really good cinematography. One scene stood out to me in particular. When Perry finally talks about his early childhood and his abusive father, and he is framed next to a window on a rainy night. The water running down the glass reflects onto his face, making it seem like tears are running down his cheek. That was really impressive cinematography, lighting, acting. Capote was a much better film, I thought. I am a big fan of Phillip Seymour Hoffman and had never seen this film, so I was looking forward to it. It was both very funny and very sad, and Capote was a very interesting character. All this makes me want to go read the book, but it would probably be really sad.

Truman Capote and the Nonfiction Novel

It is no surprise that Truman Capote's landmark novel, In Cold Blood, is considered a new genre for authors the world over. Never before has a nonfiction novel generated so much public interest and praise. Capote deftly blended the facts of a real situation with the prose of a fiction novel to tell the story of a gruesome murder. Many authors have used this mode of storytelling, known as the nonfiction novel or creative nonfiction, to great success. A lot of these novels achieve bestseller status and for good reason. For many people, a nonfiction novel is like reading a 60 minutes report. A book has that much more staying power when the reader knows it is a true story. But this new kind of writing can lead to a problem that doesn't affect fiction writers. Like this article suggests nonfiction novels can stray into fiction territory. Many people have claimed that Truman made up some of his book, but many more hold to his version as the version of truth. With fiction novels like A Million Little Lies claiming themselves to be nonfiction, it is hard for the public to distinguish between truth and lies. It didn't take long for people to abuse this new genre and it will be interesting to see how it plays itself out in the coming years.

Bloody Murder and Bob Woodward (unrelated)

Religion is hardly referenced in today's movies, which is why I was surprised to see a picture of Jesus on a wall of the Clutter's home. Then a lawyer read from the Holy Bible and recited Genesis 9:6. It doesn't get much more prophetic than that. Brooks briefly mentions having an evangelistic tone about him in an interview.

Director Richard Brooks simultaneously showed Perry Smith's father on the left reminiscing about the good old times with his son while the picture from years ago filled up the right portion of the shot (showing and telling helps reinforce the moment).

Though the actors are clearly well chosen, I still don't think they match up to Philip Seymour Hoffman's astounding performance in Capote.

In my opinion, investigative reporting has not nearly lost its appeal, but has become a major focus of entertainment in the media. CSI NY&Miami, House, Law and Order, Desperate Housewives, 60 Minutes, Hawaii 5-0 are some shows that are heavily involved with investigative material--even if they do not directly involve journalism.

Our friend Bob Woodward spoke at Tufts University this April about the need for investigative journalism.

In Cahoots with Capote

I honestly cannot remember the last time a movie horrified me so deeply. No amount of alcohol could block out that kind of psychological warfare, as Truman knew all too well. I have never had a trained eye for cinematography, but many elements stood out to me in Capote. For instance, the distant shots of the rather minimalist art forms of landscapes reminded me of the impressionistic era, such as the shot of a light sky and line of bare trees across the screen--pure and simple, naked and beautiful. These shots brought a lingering beauty to the dark story of the film, a much appreciated contrast.

A shot of a long black train coupled with the Truman’s unique voice had a great effect of personalizing the movie. The lead and ink height chart in the Clutter house also had a significant impact on me, making the Clutter family's story painfully more mentally tangible.

Another shot I was particularly fond of was when Perry Smith was being escorted by policemen through a crowd where Truman and Lee were standing. A slow motion shot panned out over the two as they steadily looked on amongst other faces, lights from the paparazzi illuminating them like angels with the pounding "cahchh" of the cameras appropriately accompanying the frame.

Stuck In-between Ethical Journalism and Charming Journalism

Something that stood out to me about Broadcast news is how the love triangle really emphasized different journalistic approaches. Jane was stuck in the middle of two people who approached journalism differently, but were also different people all together. Tom is a handsome, not very intelligent, kind anchorman, while Aaron is a less than average, brilliant, arrogant on site reporter. Jane is stuck in the middle of these two people. She herself is kind, energetic, and intelligent and seeks to provide an honest quality to journalism that doesn't sensationalize the news, but presents it as it is. She's trapped between choosing two men. One (Aaron) fits her journalistic approach and matches her level of intelligence, but he's arrogant about it and drives people away. The other (Tom) is willing to fabricate aspects of a news report and insert himself into the story for a sentimental approach, something Jane has been fighting against. But, Tom is so charming Jane looks past that aspect about him. In the end, she finds that she can't mesh with either of them and ends up being single. For her, she had to have the aspects of being kind, charming, intelligent and journalistically honest. Something Tom and Aaron in part both possessed, but individually did not possess completely.

In this scene below Aaron expresses how he feels about Tom, and Aaron. He nails, in part, what Tom is doing to Jane and how she shouldn't fall in love with a man who doesn't agree with her standards of Journalism, no matter how charming he may be.

The Paper

Sometimes life circumstances escalate very quickly and in the wrong direction. Like when that average guy (who will be remembered as the guy from Seinfeld) loses control and shoots Glenn Close in the leg at a bar. Or when McDougal shoots a hole in the office so that Mr. & Mrs. Hackett can talk. Or that time when blood-smeared Close and Keaton par in the pressroom? Why do we feel there is no other way than to resort to violence just to make people listen to us?

OK, so usually the antagonist does not turn good overnight, but I'm glad that Close ran the true story. It would have been easier to run the wrong one, save time and money, and run the truthful paper the following day. But you can't put a price on the impressions of the public.

Also, do Keaton and McDougle remind you of anyone? In this case, they don't fight back...

Broadcast News

Broadcast News actually had a couple of points that I found quite journalistically relevant. One thing that really stood out to me was Tom’s humility. He was always the first one to admit that he wasn’t as qualified as Aaron, even when everyone else disagreed. He never let his success and natural talent get to his head, and he always sought instruction and criticism so that he could be better. This is not only admirable, but necessary in journalism. Another key point was Jane’s journalistic integrity. It may have seemed a little ridiculous for her to reject Tom over faking a response for the rape story, but it showed how seriously she took her job. The entire movie builds up to that moment, and by this point you already know how much she likes Tom. The fact that she rejects him over even a tiny lie shows that dishonesty in journalism is intolerable. It is admirable that she kept to her standards, even when her heart was involved.

An article in Time about Holly Hunter’s character in Broadcast News

The Paper

The Paper, along with being one of the most light-hearted films we have watched, was also one of the only ones with a happy ending. I especially admired Alicia Clark who, though she doesn’t seem like a very admirable person, redeemed herself in the end. Yes, they could have just changed the story the next day and yes, maybe no one takes their paper seriously, but in the end, there are no excuses. She realized that what she did was journalistically unethical went through ridiculous lengths to make it right. I noticed that even though Henry would do anything to get a story, his first obligation was to truth and his first loyalty was to citizens. He would not sacrifice journalistic integrity, and he even fought (literally) Alicia to maintain that integrity.

A Washington Post review of The Paper

Broadcast News

I'm with Ryan, amazed that news anchors can process incoming information while speaking about something else! How is this possible? I'm surprised there are not more mistakes on the air.

The plot resembles all lot of the other journalist movies--the news is always changing and therefore requires incessant attention. If you haven't sweat through your shirt it's been a slow day, seems to me. The pressure is constant, people use each other, some work harder than others, but everyone is pretty stressed. Director James L. Brooks captures the stress of the job: Holly Hunter (Jane) throws her head back and bursts out into a hollow moan when she finds time to herself, just to find some kind of verbal release.

He also utilizes comdey --when Jane hands the last minute tape to a woman who runs through a set of natural obstacles to get it to the right place in time--and is hardly applauded. Yet, the woman feels great joy. This behind the scenes action shows that a lot of work is done and a lot of people do not get credit.

I found the I'm slipping convo between Jane & Aaron to be absolutely human. These odd questions are the stuff of everyday living, so I'm glad it was incorporated.

The Paper

watched this semester. Maybe it’s the sheer ninties-ness of everything, but a lot of things felt a little bit hokey to me. That’s not to say I didn’t like the film, I did, I just felt it conformed to Hollywood standards more than any film we’ve watched this semester. The plot was meticulously crafted to have all storylines converge in the hospital at the end, with everyone realizing their wrong doings and learning a good life lesson. All I could think at the end of the movie was that how do we know that Michael Keaton’s character is going to change now that his wife has had a baby. Even when she begged him not to, it was still more important to him to go to back to the paper and try to change the headline. It’s a classic Hollywood theme of family vs. career, and which is most important. Only, at the end of the Paper you don’t get a good sense of which is truly more important to Michael Keaton’s character

This TV spot isn't necessarily related to my point, but I always think it's interesting to look back at how a film was advertised and sold to audiences after having seen it, especially if it came out many years ago.

Broadcast News

Far and away the shining scene in Broadcast News was the one where Tom has to fill in for the anchor and Holly Hunter has to frantically feed him lines through his earpiece. The scene was not only a nice snapshot of the frantic and up-to-the-minute world of broadcast news, but it was very well choreographed, shot and staged. It drew me in and immediately connected me to both characters. It takes a while to get past the mid-eighties haze that hangs over the film (haircuts, clothes, etc) but once you do, it really becomes an engaging story. It’s interesting how as we watch movies made later and later, the role of the women in journalism and film alike begin to change drastically. Early on, women were getting disrespected, slapped, and trivialized. By the seventies (Network) and eighties (Broadcast News) women begin to take the roles of power both in film and journalism. All that being said, Holly Hunter’s accent did get become fairly aggravating to me…

A newseum interview about Broadcast News and how accurate the film is to the television life.

The Broad in Broadcast News

Broadcast news was a light-hearted change of pace from the other movies we've watched in class. In my opinion, Holly Hunter (as Jane) was the shining star in this movie. She was graceful, spunky, and educated; as well as a dedicated reporter. I loved the scene where she was feeding Tom the news information as he anchored the news desk. The woman was the brains behind the entire operation! Tom's dull, pretty-boy persona left me wanting more for Jane- I didn't want her to fall for him in the slightest!

Get outa my head!

The thing that struck me about "Broadcast News" didn't really have to do with the film too much, although the tension was built nicely in this scene do to dynamic shooting. I had no idea that there was that constant stream of communication between the anchor and the producer! That is incredible, to speak articulately while being given your next lines at THE SAME TIME. I bet anchors can pat their heads while rubbing their tummies like no one else.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDlg2JZXp4A&feature=related

Broadcast News and The Paper

Broadcast News

Jane Craig of Broadcast News makes every effort practice good journalism, and to rebuke those who don't. Her passion for reporting and doing her absolute best is apparent throughout the film. She is very much a control freak and at times, it can get her into trouble. Though a complete exaggeration, this film is also a good illustration of the inner workings of a more modern television news room. This is especially evident during the scene where Jane takes over the set as executive producer passing on guidance into the ear piece of anchor Tom Grunick. As the film progresses Tom and Jane begin to fall for each other. Jane's co-worker and long time friend Aaron Altman watches their relationship develop with great frustration, as he too has feelings for Jane. Much to his dismay, Tom and Jane do wind up together and eventually prepare to take a week trip to a tropical island. Aaron feels the need to tell Jane that Tom shot footage of himself after having completed an interview and had inserted the later footage into the final cut. This made Jane realize that Tom epitomized everything everything that she hated most about the direction journalism was heading. The movie ends with neither Tom nor Aaron winning Jane, who has found another man.

The Paper

The Paper tells the story of another passionate individual, Henry Hackett, who is an editor at the New York Sun. Henry's only problem is that he takes his passion to an unhealthy level when it comes before his pregnant wife Martha. When there's a story brewing, Henry's every thought is focused on finding the next detail of the story that will bring it closer to print. He generally practices good journalism and his conscious is actively involved in his decision making process. He did steal a lead from the editor of a rival paper during an interview, but he refused to go to print with a false story. He went to any lengths necessary to obtain the quote he needed to set the story right before going to print.

Broadcast News

When watching Broadcast News I was really only struck by one thing, how much work goes into every production. The same goes for The Paper. Every night all the workers get together and put on a half hour play that they wrote the same day. It has to be timed down to the minute, it has to be accurate in its information, and most of all it has to be entertaining for the audience that is going to be watching it. It is no wonder that a majority of film and TV producers say that their job is stressful. And if Broadcast News seems like it was over the top, that maybe it was just a parody of the stresses of a newsroom this interview with Bob Schieffer should change your mind. Mr. Schieffer says that if anything Broadcast News is a documentary because of the great way it portrays the stresses of a news program. So whether you liked the movie or not, you cannot claim that it is inaccurate.

Edward R. Murrow

The advent of the television changed the way Americans gathered their news. The newspaper could be supplemented by a trusted news anchor every night. One of the most trusted names in news and a significant influence on all in the broadcast industry was Edward R. Murrow. The George Clooney directed Good Night and Good Luck details the most important moment of Murrow's career. Murrow ran a TV show called See It Now, a documentary series that influences shows like 60 Minutes today. In the aftermath of WWII America had communist fever and a senator from Wyoming, Senator Joseph McCarthy, was running all over accusing people of communism. Murrow and his crew decided to stand up to him by producing a broadcast that showed McCarthy often contradicted himself. This resulted in a huge controversy and a feud between McCarthy and Murrow broke out. But the truth won out and Murrow's efforts are considered a turning point in television history. The film is a wonderful docudrama that is well-acted, superbly paced and brilliant in its construction. I believe it is a great learning tool for citizens that want to know about a difficult time in our history, as well as teaching them about the dangers of fear mongering and the ability of the press to protect the innocent.

Interview: Journalist's Favorite Movies

  The second professional reporter I interviewed was my very own neighbor Jeannie Stromgren who has “had 30 years of on-air and print writing experience for local, network and national stations and publications.” Jeannie’s first favorite journalism movie is Ace in the Hole. She said that previous newspaper films portrayed the business as “wacky fun”.” Ace in the Hole changed that by showing “unlikeable characters doing shameless things.” Jeannie thinks the film has an importance because “it exposes the unpleasant truth of how a "human interest story" is often milked for newspaper circulation.”

  Jeannie’s second favorite journalism film is Broadcast News. Jeannie has worked at “three television stations” and she was very impressed by how accurate Broadcast News is. The dysfunction of the characters, the hectic busyness of a newsroom and the believability of the situations give the film credibility. Jeannie mentioned how James L. Brooks shadowed an actual TV producer and it shows in the film. Too often Hollywood gets it wrong but Broadcast News “gets it right.”

   Jeannie’s final favorite journalism movie (and one of my personal favorites) is Good Night and Good Luck. The riveting tale of Edward R. Murrow’s takedown of Senator McCarthy’s terror campaign is incredible. Jeannie says that “any journalist worth his salt has heard of Murrow and his groundbreaking work.” Jeannie says that, “George Clooney (of all people!) captures the methodical, smart, relentless way that Murrow pursued the truth behind McCarthy’s witch hunts.” I couldn’t agree more with her final statement that you know you’re watching a good film when you forget that you’re “watching a movie, and instead, become completely absorbed in the story.”

Interview: Journalist's Favorite Movies

            The first professional reporter I talked to was Alan Burke, a staff reporter over at the Salem News. The first movie Alan listed was His Girl Friday. Mr. Burke said that Friday shows the “atmosphere among reporters in the business.” Of course he made mention that Friday has some terrible morals but he loved the scene where the girl jumps out the window. He loved how she told off the reporters right before she does jump, they deserved every word because for them “misery is a commodity.”

            Mr. Burke’s second movie was All the President’s Men. He didn’t have too much to say about it except that the film showed the process of journalism very well. Mr. Burke made mention of how realistic it was how long they were on the phone during the movie, especially how difficult it is to interview people who don’t want to be interviewed.

            The final movie that Mr. Burke listed was The Sweet Smell of Success. The movie shows how much power a newspaper can have. Burt Lancaster’s character is based off of real life columnist Walter Winchell. Mr. Burke likes the film because of how it shows that truth does a lot of damage. Mr. Burke mentioned that when he was investigating things he found out some weird stuff about people. Revealing those things in a paper could become an issue for the readers. Mr. Burke also made quick mention of The Paper. I thought it was great that every movie he listed was one that I enjoyed when we watched it for this class.

Pinacle of Excellent Journalism in "All the President's Men"

So far, out of all the movies we have watched this semester "All the President's Men," in my opinion, represents true journalism the best. This can most likely be attributed to the fact that it is based upon actual events in history that were still fresh in people's memory. I feel, while there is a lot of artistic direction and very carefully crafted choreography, it is more focused on journalism than being a "movie" so to speak. Of course, it does have a plot line, and story, but amidst that is a very strong central journalistic narrative. Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein portray the utmost journalistic excellence as they pursue a story that puts their own lives in danger, as well as the reputation of the Washington Post, all to accomplish, essentially, the central goal of journalism, which is to inform citizens so they can be free and self governing. I found this movie to provide excellent examples of the elements of journalism. By pursuing this story they were also keeping those in the highest governmental courts accountable, and in check. They also verified their sources and worked very hard to get people to speak on record to cross check their information. They never inserted themselves into the story they were writing, and they never embellished the truth. They didn't side with any party, but rather they submitted to a cause, even while the media portrayed them as siding with the democrats and attacking the republicans.

The following video highlights the journalistic methods Woodward and Bernstein used, as well as a behind the scenes look of the film, and how it was crafted to best tell the story. It's really interesting to see how accurate this movie really was (even looking at the real journalists compared to Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman.)

Prophet vs. Profit

In honor of Network's tension between the role of prophet and profit in television, I'm reminded of Kierkegaard, the famous Danish philosopher who was also a Christian. In the mid-1800s he wrote: "Suppose someone invented an instrument, a convenient little talking tube which, say, could be heard over the whole land . . . I wonder if the police would not forbid it, fearing that the whole country would become mentally deranged if it were used."

The Kennedy Assassination & The Parallax View

Famed cult director Alex Cox ("Repo Man," "Sid and Nancy") introduces "The Parallax View"

All the President's Men: Dull but True

All the President’s Men is the most journalistically relevant film we’ve watched in this class so far. At first I found it to be extremely dry, but the more I thought about it, the more I began to appreciate it. We as movie-viewers are spoiled by fantastical storylines designed to constantly keep us amused. This film, however, seemed to be a lot more “muse” than “amusement,” and while it took more discipline to follow the film and not zone out, I can appreciate it for its realism. Showing phone call after phone call and years of investigating and research doesn’t make for the most interesting film, but it does make for a far more accurate depiction of journalism than most films. The plot didn’t need to fall back on some kind of fluffy love-interest sub-plot or personal-life crisis. In fact, the viewer knows virtually nothing about the journalists’ backgrounds and personal lives. Just like journalism itself, this movie was convincing and effective through its detail and showing of the process, no matter how dry and mundane. The monotony of hitting road block after road block made the breakthroughs all the more triumphant and exciting. It is also a great story of investigative journalism, which is becoming a lost art in our generation.

All the King's Horses and All the King's Men

Not to be confused with Robert Penn Warren's novel All the King's Men from the late forties, All the President's Men parallels is a film about the Watergate scandal. Political espionage is a theme throughout both plotlines, pulling back the curtain to see the dirty deck this dark side of journalism pans out. Cinematically speaking, the interviewers' faces were half covered in darkness, showing their desire to speak the truth but their greater fear for safety, for conforming to the government's threats to keep quiet.

Bernstein and Woodward are Kovach and Rosenstiel's dream journalists. They clearly worked meticulously to do journalism the right way. Woodward did not reveal who "deep throat" was, nor did he or Bernstein identify anyone who wished to remain anonymous. They double checked their sources. They were transparent about why they were asking the questions they were, in order to achieve a greater good. The two even skirted around the questionable parts of journalism with descent tactics. When they mess up, they admit it. (click here to see dialogue between Woodward/Bernstein and Debbie Sloan)

I enjoy the rough transition from scene to scene in the movies from older decades. Modern movies rush through scenes so quickly it is sometimes hard to keep up, whereas in these movies, an intense, loud situation can be happening then a quick juxtaposition to a serene landscape, new setting--next plot point.

All The President's Men

All The President’s Men is a snapshot of easily the most famous and exalted example of good journalism in American history. What more could you ask for? Two ragtag journalist following the story, painstakingly checking their facts, and checking them again. They withstood a barrage of smear tactics, death threats, and white house misinformation in order to discover the truth and ultimately take down the most powerful man in America. The movie itself was very good, although I wish they had followed more of the story. They covered the beginning with great detail, but once it began to get to the point where the story really blows up and begins to threaten Nixon’s power, they simply have a few shots of newspaper headlines being written about what ends up happening to Nixon. It showed that if you are willing to stick to the facts and stand up against the powers that be, you can have just as much power as they do. If this movie weren’t based on things that actually happened I would call it an unabashed journalism apologetic. But, since it did happen it’s more of a tribute to the fine work of Bernstein and Woodard. After all the yellow journalism we’ve seen in this class, I was beginning to believe there was no good journalism left.

Also, a pretty interesting video from 5 minutes before Nixon resigns from office. He seems surprisingly at peace despite what is about to happen. (I'd recommend turning to annotations off on youtube)

All The President's Men and Good Journalism

All The President's Men is the first film we've seen that actually employs good journalism. The almost superhero journalist duo of Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein went to great lengths to uncover one of the greatest presidential scandals in the history of the United States. They did it with determination, skill, and the know-how to uncover the facts they needed. It's good to teach students what they shouldn't do when it comes to journalism, but it is even better to show how they should do it. Watergate can be generally pointed to as the birth of investigative journalism. Something that 60 minutes capitalizes on weekly. How did two men with different personalities and character traits break the biggest story of the decade? All The Preisdent's Men gives the viewer the answer in every scene. The film does a great job of showing the time lapse between the start of the report and the finish. Woodward and Bernstein jump through multiple hoops just to even get approval from their editors. They make more phone calls than I have in my life to the same people over and over again. They get multiple sources to make sure the story is correct and they interview and re-interview witnesses to the crime. In the end the film isn't even about Watergate, it is about impressive journalism by two talented professionals. Every self-respecting journalist aspires to this level of integrity and reporting.

I saw this last night on Jon Stewart. Bill Moyer of PBS discusses good journalism: Part 1, Part 2

All the Presidents Men

The individuals portrayed in these two films exemplify what it means to practice good journalism.

All The Presidents Men

Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein have gone down in journalism history for their relentless pursuit and and eventual breaking of the Watergate scandal. Devotion + Determination + Follow Through = Great Journalism. These two men went up against the entirety of the Nixon administration, and won. No other news organizations would go near this story for fear of receiving the same sharp criticism as the Washington Post. Furthermore, they stuck to their journalistic principles throughout the entirety of their multi-year long investigation. Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford did a spectacular job. It's very easy to see why these two actors are considered to be near the top of the "A" list. Years later Bernstein and Woodward were interviewed, and after having seen it, you get a good sense of just how accurate the film's depiction of this event really is.

All the Presidents Men

All the Presidents Men

I loved this movie! I've always loved Robert Redford, and this movie was no exception as he played Bob Woodward. I was interested to know more about the watergate scandall- and because of this movie hope to read more about it. Journalistically, this movie emphasized the importance of verification; and rightly so, dealing with a scandal of this scale, involving so many people of political importance. I also really appreciated the way the movie ended with the typewriter shots. I was expecting the story to continue to play out with Redford and Hoffman, but the way it ended was fitting and impressionable. Here's one of my other favorite Robert Redford movies.

Scene Compositon Exercising Dominance in "Network"

A particular scene in "Network" that I gravitated towards was the scene where Ned Beatty's character Arthur Jensen delivers a speech to Peter Finche's character Howard Beale. There were two things about this scene that I noted. First, the lighting. Jensen makes a point to close the shades behind him, to in part, impose higher authority over Beale to influence him. Jensen is the most lit in the room and Beale is cowering in shadow to demonstrate a shift in dominance. Second, I noted the language used in the scene. It's on an astronomical level, where Beale had been speaking from. Jensen condescends Beale by out doing Beale's religious zeal with his own, becoming the face of God to Beale. Watch this scene and take note of these two factors. Also, in addition to the lighting and language, the composition of the room and placement of the actors is significant as well. Beale sits at the end of the table closest to the entrance, while Jensen stands deep in the room across the large table, all the way on the other end. His speech is allowed to echo through the room. Everything builds towards Jensens dominance over Beale in this scene. You can view the scene here.

The Parallax View and Network

The Parallax View was a cinematically intriguing film, full of drawn-out suspenseful shots that make the viewer experience the same paranoia the characters are experiencing. This film always kept me guessing and never gave too much away. I also appreciated the contrast in its use of sound--how it would shift from a loud action scene to a serene quiet scene with little warning. The brainwashing scene was especially impressive and thought-provoking. Here is an interesting explanation of the "Incredible Montage."

While I found Parallax to be a better quality film, I found Network to be more journalistically relevent. It certainly had a lot to say about the corruption of the media. Like Ace in the Hole, Network portrays the media as harsh and unforgiving, using people merely as subjects of their own profit rather than viewing them as real human-beings. Over and over, Max tries to convince the network that Howard needs medical and psychological help. In the end, the network kills Howard for their own gain just as Chuck Tatum killed Leo in Ace in the Hole. This seems to be a common theme in films about the media; rarely is it portrayed favorably.

Network

I think that in 2011, it is a perfect time to watch a film like Network. Our current socioeconomic conditions are fairly similar to the 1970’s (gas prices, the middle east, recession, loss of trust in the govt) and our broadcast journalism has only gotten worse since the advent of 24-hour cable news. Every media message is constructed, now more than ever. Every TV journalist has an angle, whether it’s an agenda, ratings, visibility, etc. In the 70’s TV was still new, so it was easier for the people in the film to have an idea of the effect that television was having on people (a negative one, in the screenwriters opinion). Today, TV is so interwoven into all aspects of society that we are almost too far in the forest to see the trees. It’s hard for us to have any perspective on a life without TV, or the pacification of the public that has taken place because of our TV obsession. I think if this film was made today the famous line would be “I’m mad, but ill keep taking it so long as the office and sportscenter are on when I’m bored!”…or something like that.

Network and The Parallax View

Network and The Parallax View are two very different films which convey very different messages.

Network

Network is a highly exaggerated look into a failing broadcasting network (UBS), and what its higher-ups are willing to do in order to get back on top of the ratings. It begins by looking at news anchor Howard Beale. The head of the news and journalism branch of UBS, Max Schumacher, was keen on adhering to traditional journalistic values, and made every effort to do so on all UBS news programs, including Howard Beale's. Due to the failing ratings of the news division and the influence of Diana Chistensen (who was later put in charge of most of UBS' programming), Howard and Max received news that they were to be fired. Traditional journalistic values were done away with in order to bring about higher ratings. On what were to be his last shows, Howard began to rant and rave in anger. Diana sought to exploit this as people were tuning in to see Howard's ludicrousness. This progressed into a seeming endless downward spiral progressing further and further away from the values Max represented to the ruthless "Whatever Sells" attitude of Diana. Howard's ratings eventually began to fall. The film ends with Diana and her colleagues discussing what to do about these failing ratings. They conclude that the best approach is to assassinate Beale and use the footage on one of their other shows. Though a complete exaggeration, Network shows that there is more to reporting the news than journalistic values. There is a corporate ratings machine to contend with, and one must wonder, "To what extent are networks willing to compromise traditional values in order to maintain ratings?"

The Parallax View

This film tells the story of reporter Joseph Frady, and his investigation into the Parallax corporation. The evidence he has gathered indicates that this corporation is involved in a greater conspiracy to shape the outcomes of political races by seeking out individuals with aggressive tendencies to carry out assassinations. The film begins with the murder of a senator, and years later those who witnessed this murder were being picked off one by one. Joseph begins to realize that these murders, though portrayed as occurring by natural or unaided means,are being controlled by some greater force. Through his investigation, Joseph realizes that the greater force controlling these deaths is the Parallax Corporation. He then seeks out employment in this corporation in order to infiltrate their ranks to further his investigation. The movie ends with Joseph being framed and killed for the assassination of a perspective senator by the corporation he sought to undo.

Conspiracy Theories and Sensationalism

Network and The Parallax View look to be completely unrelated. One is about a corrupt network who kill a man for lousy ratings instead of getting him help, because he is quite obviously insane. The other is about an American senator's assassination at the hands of a very large and organized secret assassin's company. The ridiculousness of that last statement is a testament to America's love of a good conspiracy. But how are these things related? In the beginning of this year Representative Gabrielle Giffords was shot by a crazed gunman. Fortunately for her and 13 other people, the wounds were not fatal. 6 more were not so lucky. The assailant, Jared Loughner, was quite obviously insane and showed numerous signs of mental illness. It was obvious that he acted alone and carried out the deed in broad daylight in front of numerous witnesses. That didn't stop conspiracy theorists from trying to claim the whole thing didn't happen. What drives people to this edge? When 99% of America believes this is an event that happened, why do 1% hold to a falsehood? Sensationalism is the answer. The greatest of all sensationalists today (and thankfully, recently fired) is Glenn Beck. Dana Milbank, of The Washington Post, explains why Beck lost his job even though he is one of the most popular TV personalities on Fox. The entire time I was watching Howard Beale lose it in Network I kept thinking of Glenn Beck. They both have wildly popular shows and they both cater to an audience that is mad as hell. Like Beale, Beck encourages his audience to do something about it, but Beck caters to conspiracy theories and I believe in many cases, can inadvertently promote them. Beck uses a blackboard to connect all of the crazy ideas he has in his mind, and it worked for a while. He rode the fear wave that comes out of a post 9/11 and post economic-collapse world. But like Howard Beale he eventually became a liability for the controversial things he was saying. I'm just glad Fox didn't take the route that UBS did in Network. Sensationalism can easily lead to conspiracy theories, but that just might be a conspiracy theory of my own.

Network & Parallax View

Network

Aside from being lengthy and full of long-winded speeches (some of them quite memorable), I enjoyed this movie. William Holden was a breath of fresh air; a character with more than an ounce of morality. Faye Dunaway, although I couldnt stand her shallow character, embodied Diana Christensen flawlessly. I couldn't stop thinking about if TV was corrupt in the 70s...well what does TV say about our culture today?!

Parallax View

I COULD NOT STAND THIS MOVIE! I felt uncomfortable throughout the entire viewing, and seriously considered walking out. The only positive thing was the extraordinary photography and cinematography! Besides that, I completely lost track of the fact that Joe was a journalist. I think he came off as a wanna-be-detective or investigative agent. The depressing ending only reaffirmed my disgust in this film. Don't just take my word for it, when the film was released it didnt exactly get rave reviews from the NY Times either.

Photography makes it

The key to The Parallax View is in the photography. Every moment, every character connection and disconnection, every story, every emotion is in the way it's shot. The use of color separation, light and dark, angles, diagonal lines all support the message and story of the film. Plain and Simple.

http://www.filmreference.com/Writers-and-Production-Artists-Vi-Win/Willis-Gordon.html

The World Revolves around George Washington

The speech in Network about money being the center of our operating world really hit me as an all too true "natural order of things" (click to see the monologue on youtube). Another biting line from the film was when the middle aged man leaves the woman, making for a better story so they called it: "Dianna, everything you touch dies with you."


In The Parallax View, an interesting point from a cinamatographic view is when Robert talks business with a man about the possibility of sporatic serial killers attacking his friend group--on a choo-choo train.

Ace in the Hole

While a really enjoyed Ace In The Hole, both the performances as well as the cinematic choices, there were a couple points in the plot that left me scratching my head. The first issue for me was the sensational nature that the story took on so quickly. There was no real explanation of how his story goes from the Albuquerque Sun-Bulletin to the national radar. All of a sudden there are just thousands of people at the cave, wanting to hear the news. It went from one family going to see the caves to thousands of people and carnival rides very quickly. It seemed like they could have used some sort of explanation there, although it’s a small thing. The bigger thing that bothered me in the plot was the reality that Douglas’ character was able to keep any other newspaper from being reporting on the story from up close. Besides, even if those reporters couldn’t get up close doesn’t mean they couldn’t still write the story. If there’s anything I’ve learned about newspapermen through these films it’s that they are willing to do whatever they can to get the story they want. So, for me it was hard to believe that he could just keep them at bay. That being said, I really enjoyed the film. I thought that Kurt Douglas was very good and the last shot where he falls down dead right at the camera lens is exceptional.

Ace in the Hole

Toddi mentioned that the camera zooms up on the characters to create a sense of entrapment, which is clearly appropriate when a descent amount of film is taken from within a cave. Wilder's adventurous shots must have wowed audiences when it first came out.

Another interesting shot was when Charles claims he is taking over the small town newspaper (shot of Charles walking into the camera). When Charles is again that close to the camera he hits the ground, dead. Wilder seems to believe in the superiority complex going nowhere, that greed does not triumph truth.

Slant Magazine's review of Ace in the Hole spekas of the psychology of Charles , which is interestingly ironic--he has broken the rules of journalism yet clearly reprimands Lorraine for breaking mental bonds with her husband. Maybe he does not want Lorraine to like him because he himself doesn't even like him. This is evident when Charles reacts so strongly to Leo's diagnosis from the doctor--his face doubles over and he becomes more violent. Billy Wilder showed the slow death of Charles from the first day Charles picked one man's story over the crowd--when he put human interest before human life.

Ace in the Hole: Skewing Reality

From a strictly cinematic view, Ace in the Hole was my favorite film so far. I love its unexpected and non-cliché plot that shows an honest representation of the media and human nature, as unglamorous as it may be. The themes about journalism and the media were so beyond their time. Though Ace in the Hole deals with newspapers, it holds even more true today with reality shows and 24/7 television news. In fact, this film reminded me a lot of The Truman Show, a 1998 film about a man whose life has been completely manufactured for 24/7 public viewing, via the television. The audience in the The Truman Show, Ace in the Hole alike is ruthlessly consumed and infatuated with the media victim’s fate. The producer in The Truman Show is strikingly similar to Chuck Tatum in that they both will stop at nothing for a good story, no matter the pain and misery they inflict upon their subjects. In reality shows today, there is very little “reality,” just as the need for a week-long rescue mission of Leo wasn't reality. Though dramatized to an extent, I think Ace in the Hole portrayed the reality show/tabloid aspect of the media dead-on, especially for a film made in 1951.

Pocket Aces

This film made me feel like a terrible human being. And that is a good thing. Kirk Douglas plays this type of Han Solo character that you can't help but love and hate. Everytime he comes close to doing a good deed, he screws it up for his own personal gain, and we're left there clenching our fists wanting to yell at the screen and curse. It's difficult to even talk about this film in an educated way. Kirk Douglas made this what it is in my opinion. The charm and bite of a snake.

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000018/

Ace In The Hole

Ace in the Hole is a fantastic film about one journalist's determination to extend a story as far as it can go. He does this with the purpose of getting back on top of the newspaper game. Unfortunately his actions cause the death of the protagonist of his article. I believe that director Billy Wilder was saying something about the power of media influence in this film. That the media can significantly influence the outcome of a story. For Kirk Douglas in Ace in the Hole, it was the creation of a media firestorm that resulted in a tent city. I know that the media has a great potential for doing good, alerting the public to an important situation, but I wanted to see if there was any case where media overexposure worked badly. A recent story that came to mind for me was the issue of Obama's birth certificate. It was proven long ago that Obama had a birth certificate, he was born in the U.S. and he has every right to be the president since he was elected democratically. But, even so, many people cried out for his birth certificate, especially Donald Trump. Every news channel picked up the controversy, but there was no controversy. It was already proven that Obama had it, but the firestorm forced him to release a long form birth certificate anyways. Should the media have covered what many consider a non-story? I feel like this overexposure may have actually led more people into believing there was no birth certificate. I know that this is not as dramatic as a man's death like in Ace in the Hole, but it shows how overexposed some things can get. It is a tricky area for networks to balance what is important and what is too frivolous to really matter.

The Circus and it's Ringmaster

When watching "Ace in the Hole" I was struck by the actions above ground compared to the situation underground. Everyone on the surface had a false sense of optimism about getting Leo Minosa unstuck from the ancient indian mines. Not only that, but the situation had turned into a spectacle, to the point where people were literally celebrating and having a circus above a suffering Leo Minosa. In this movie, the type of journalism that is portrayed is selfish, and sensational. Tatum bends the truth to tell people what they want to hear, which in part is reflected in the overly positive gathering next to the ancient indian mines. What comes next is a process of acceptance, and in my opinion redemption. Chuck truly realizes what he's done, and accepts his own fate. His announcement to the audience is chilling when he says "The Circus is over." I feel this scene is the most powerful scene in the movie, because it shows really how out of hand the entire situation has become. Chuck must yell over the jubilus crowd several times, and even when the sound quells down he still yells "Listen," almost to quite their spirits as well, and lay the gravity of the fact that they have all turned a suffering, trapped man in a mine into a circus, and that he was the ring master.

Ace in the Hole

Ace in the Hole


This movie was probably my least favorite so far! The cinematography was amazing, but the storyline was not for me! Douglas' character was dispicable- killing an innocent man and taking advantage of threatening circumstances in order to get a big break in his journalism career. The way an innocent man's misfortunes became a spectacle, ultimately a 'circus', made my stomache turn. Even though I hated the adulterous wife character, I still felt sympathy for her when Douglas slapped her face and almost choked her! Those moments were very jarring and unexpected. This movie exemplified 'below the belt journalism' and characters that completely lack a moral compass. I feel more educated and well-rounded having watched this famous Billy Wilder film, but I hope to never sit through it again.

I was curious about the meaning behind the movie title and this is what I found! I'm guessing that Douglas thought the news of the man in the cave would be his 'ace in the hole' or assurance for journalistic success.

Sweet Smell of Success' Tony Curtis in movie trailer for Some Like it Hot

Journalism in Ace in the Hole

Ace in the Hole is the perfect example of how journalism can get way out of hand and potentially magnify situations which it seeks to report. Chuck Tatum's desperation to make it big drove him to commit atrocities that eventually lead to his own death and the death of Leo Minosa. For Chuck Tatum, what ever sells is what he prints; Exaggeration of existing details of the story, and fabricating new details are the name of the game. Tatum put his advancement over the lives of those who were involved in the story he was covering and as a result parents lost their son, a wife lost her husband, and Tatum lost his own life.

Journalism as Portrayed in Good Night and Good Luck

Good Night and Good Luck is a film about Edward Murrow, who was a radio/ television journalist for CBS throughout the 30's, 40's, and 50's. He is most well known for his investigation and criticism of senator Joseph McCarthy, who at the time was involved in the identification of members of the communist party on American soil.

McCarthy was using interrogation techniques that a lot of people considered to be outrageous.

No one would call McCarthy out for fear of being accused of being a communist, that was until Murrow

and his team sought out to investigate McCarthy. They aired a series of shows that used McCarthy's

own words against him, and revealed his style of interrogation. Their shows eventually lead to the

censorship of McCarthy by the U.S. Senate.

Murrow was an outstanding journalist, who valued practicing good journalism just as much as getting the story. His fearless investigation of McCarthy has gone down in journalism history. He advocated the use of television to inspire, educate, and perhaps introduce important issues to the general public. He believed that to impose censorship on the news would contribute the the deterioration of the country, and he did all he could to prevent that from occurring.

Deadline USA

Deadline USA is the first film we’ve watched that has a main journalist character that the audience can easily root for. His plight is straightforward: they are trying to close down his newspaper even though it’s the only one willing to cover the Rienzi story. Ed Hutcheson is very loyal to The Day and to the ideals of good honest journalism. He is the first character we have watched who wasn’t a ‘yellow journalist’ and was only concerned with the pursuit of truth. For me, this made the film slightly less effective. It made Hutcheson seem like more of a fictional character than the other films we’ve watched. Someone like Charles Kane serves as an example of the twisted, corrupting power the media and wealth can have on a person. Kane is a character that seems real and flawed, which ultimately leads to his demise. Bogart’s character, on the other hand, personifies the ideal journalist in such a way that it made him seem less likely to be a real person, at least to me. Because of the way journalists have been satirized and criticized throughout film history, Deadline USA almost feels like a rebuttal to all of those portrayals. Depicting a man who is steadfast in his convictions, rather than just seeking personal wealth and success.

Also, an interesting review of 'Sweet Smell of Success' from when it was released

DEADline

Good journalism was seen in this movie! Good ol' Humphrey stood up for justice, fighting against the dirty town with truth in his print. Symbolically, violence landed upon his press, but even that did not stop him. I like how the producer portrayed the antagonist as an all encompassing bad guy.

What is with all these movies having ex-wives back into the picture, and remarrying the next day? Curious...

Sweet Smell of Roses?

"Sweet Smell of Success" was an interesting film that glided across the reels with more action that the others we have watched so far. Falco's twisted character fulfilled the greedy journalism thread throughout. I enjoyed the twists at the en with Susie, who thankfully set herself free from the one man creating all the trouble in the first place--her brother. At one point during the movie, we get a close up of JJ in a smokey haze, as usual. He is dictating orders to others, and a black shadow completely encompasses his eyes. This shot portrays JJ as more than an evil character but an evil idea--showing the dark side of journalism and how far people are willing to go to get what they want. Selfishness, lies, deceit, violence, and manipulation interweave throughout this film--in other words, bad journalism.

A review, check out the cinematography comments on my link.

Truth is Marching On!

Though Deadline USA offers a lot of insight into the world of journalism, its major theme seems to be that journalism is not just “comics, contests, and puzzles;” it’s a symbol of freedom. The film isn’t shy about getting this message through, and it does so in more ways than one. Lines like “A free press is like a free life—it's always in danger,” and “Show me a martyr and I’ll show you a dead man,” emphasize that journalism is a matter of liberty—a cause worth fighting for. With Mrs. Schmidt’s heart-warming testimony she explains that the newspaper helped her learn English and stay informed about current events so that she could be an involved American citizen rather than a helpless immigrant. Most blatantly of all is, of course, Ed Hutcheson’s passionate final monologue. When mobster Rienzi threatens Ed’s life if he prints the story, Ed replies, “People like you have tried it before. With bullets, prison, censorship. But as long as even one newspaper will print the truth, you're finished,” and then proceeds to triumphantly hold the phone up to rolling presses. Ultimately, Deadline USA was not about Ed or even The Day, but rather about need for truth, and the freedom of the press to print the truth. As the Battle Hymn Republic resounds throughout the film, the lyrics match the message: the truth will march on!

Journalism as Compared Between Sweet Smell of Success and Deadline USA

Sweet Smell of Success

Sweet Smell of Success is a film about a New York columnist by the name of J.J. Hunsecker. He is well known, feared by some, and respected by all. He uses Sidney Falco as a "press agent," but in reality Falco gets J.J. tips for stories and does J.J.'s dirty work. The central issue of the film revolves around J.J.'s sister, Susan Hunsecker; specifically her relationship with Steve Dallas. J.J. wants this relationship to be disbanded, and uses Falco in a variety of ways to accomplish this objective. While Falco works on the more intimate aspects of their plan, and J.J. uses his power and influence to make the necessary calls when required.

Falco uses the power of persuasion and manipulation to entice and blackmail columnists into publishing bad reviews about Steve's band, which had been gaining popularity. As a result, Steves's band looses their venue. Susan asks J.J. to make a call to get Steves Job back. Falc0 then sets up Steve to speak his mind and stand up to J.J., which then gives J.J. the ammunition he needs to disband the relationship.

Falco and J.J. are characters that are used to being able to charm and persuade in order to accomplish their goals and get where they need to be. They practice a lowly form of journalism, which involves bribery and blackmail. These two men are used to being on top, and getting what they desire, but by the end of the film the way they conduct themselves catches up to them. Falco is imprisoned and J.J. looses his sister. The real winner in this film is Susan, who gained independence from the manipulative tongue or her brother.

Deadline USA

Deadline USA is the story of newspaper editor Ed Hucheson and his battle to save his paper The Day while attempting to publish a story which would put away a serous gangster by the name of Tomas Rienzi. Ed is a strong believer in the principles which The Day is founded upon, and knows that if this paper were to go under there would be a considerable void in the lives of its readers and in the newspaper business as a whole.

The Day is in danger of being sold off to one of its competitors, and Ed believes that if he could publish the Rienzi story, he just might be able to persuade the owners not to sell the paper and get them to realize how valuable it is. Ed plans to accomplish this by linking the murder of a young woman to Rienzi. When publishing the story of the woman's murder Ed chooses not to show any racy pictures of her in the paper and not to demoralize the victim in anyway. Throughout the entire investigation of the woman's murder and Rienzi, Ed sticks to his morals and practices good journalism (With the exception of offering a cash bribe to a witness). He is rewarded when the woman's mother agrees to share her side of the story with Ed because he had shown such integrity in the way he published the story of her daughters murder. This was the missing link that Ed and The Day needed to nail Rienzi.

Ed Hucheson is an excellent example of what it means to practice good journalism. He is courageous and cunning, while maintaining his principles and integrity. This is clearly illustrated by what most consider to be the most powerful scene in the film.

-Tom H.

The Sweet Smell & Deadline

The Sweet Smell of Success

I both enjoyed and disliked this movie. I was eager to watch Tony Curtis, as I have enjoyed him in many other movies including Some Like it Hot ( a great comedy if you haven't seen it!). However his portrayal of his slimey character Falco left me wanting more from Curtis. I also was very frustrated with the role of Hunsecker's sister; extremely weak and helpless in the presence of her brother. From a journalistic point of view this movie is all about what not to do! Falco would compromise anything for an 'item' when in reality journalism should be all about presenting the truth to the public. Although I am not usally attuned to artistic shots or musical scores, I couldn't miss either in this movie. The cinematography and jazz scores were the unavoidable elements of success in this movie.

*1st link is for fun-trailer for Curtis' movie Some Like it Hot

Deadline USA

Deadline USA was deffinitely more of a 'feel good' kind of movie- made me proud of journalistic work, but in contrast the cinematography was much less crafted even to the untrained eye. I felt strongly that Deadline had a much better storyline, where the journalist of a dying newspaper were working to bring the truth to the people even until its last moments of publication. Two of my favorite quotes from the movie about journalism: "...the profession for the public good. It's the best profession." "A journalist is the hero of a story. The reporter is just a witness." And Bogart also said at one point that he was looking for "facts that wont bounce." I loved that! great script writing and great advice to tuck away for a journalistic career someday.

*2nd link is of personal/most memorable scene from the movie.

The Sweet Smell of J.J. Hunsecker

What is it about success that drives people to depravity? They make it seem like the only way to get it, is to sink to depths so low only the strongest, sickest man could climb out. Sidney Falco is a man willing to do that. J.J. Hunsecker is the man who has been there and found his way to the top. There is a very interesting dynamic between these two men. Sidney is a stray dog; cunning and vicious but without a place to lay his head. Hunsecker is the big dog, graciously allowing Sidney's clients into his much-read column. Sidney claims that he is in it for success, he wants to make it big. His actions show otherwise. When confronted by an important client of his about being a bad press agent, Sidney tells his own client off. All after ranting about how low he is on the totem pole. Sidney shows in the film that he is more cunning than this. He wouldn't just give up a client that easily. Later on in the film, Sidney uses his considerable wit to lure another promising client. But when the client finally decides he wants Sidney as a press agent, Sidney runs off because J.J. called him, telling the client to find another man. This is very self destructive behavior for a man wanting success. Sidney is as pretty as a movie star, but he prefers to play second fiddle. Sidney doesn't want success, he wants J.J. He needs approval from him, he likes playing the pet. Like J.J. needs his sister's love so Sidney needs J.J.'s. Sidney should have seen it coming, he should have known that J.J. cared nothing for him, but he was too tempted by the success of other people to achieve his own.

Both Ends of The Spectrum: "Sweet Smell of Success" and "Deadline U.S.A"

I find it interesting to consider just how different the movies "Sweet Smell of Success" and "Deadline U.S.A" were. On one end ("Sweet Smell of Success'), you have complete and utter corruption of journalism, and on the other you have journalism at it's peak of excellence, even in the face of being shut down ("Deadline U.S.A). Both movies provide two extremes that are almost unrealistic to real world journalism. Corruption runs rampant in "Sweet Smell of Success", and is all muddled up in personal conflict, control and egotism. Meanwhile, even while "The Day" is shutting down ("Deadline U.S.A.") it's workers are still dedicated to the cause, and everyone seems to have potential to be a hero. Not only that, it seems utterly patriotic, especially the music, playing a familiar patriotic theme, The Battle Hymn of the Republic whenever it's main character speaks about the mission of journalism. Deadline U.S.A is capable of representing the workings of a newpaper business very accurately, and in a movie review by Bosley Crowther it is claimed to do "all right by the trade." Crowther notes, also, it is melodramatic, and if anything that adds to the hint of unrealism this movie offers. In "Sweet Smell of Success," J.J. Hunsecker uses his power in journalism to manipulate those around him, including his sister. The characters are shallow and manipulative, and edge slightly away from realistically human. Both movies carry such extremes of both ends that, depending on the journal, if you take a little of both of these and add a hint of unpredictability you would get a closer representation of real journalism. Both are great films though.